Skip to main content

Evaluate whether technological change means that the wage gap between the skilled and unskilled will simply keep growing.

 


The idea of a wage gap is somewhat simplistic. It is undeniable that there is a gap in nominal terms between those who are not formally skilled and those with salaried jobs who hold professional qualifications. The development of the ‘precariat’ is something which tends to run against this idea. Many of those who are formally skilled are highly leveraged, and it is estimated, have so little in savings, and so much in housing, educational, and personal debt, that they are between one and two pay-days away from bankruptcy. Often, those who are skilled live in high-cost areas and rent, rather than own property, whereas some of those who are unskilled live in public housing or their family property with a much lower set of outgoings per month. In addition, many of those classed as unskilled are young, and are living with parents or relatives who can accommodate them.

It follows that a wage gap predicated upon technological change which pushes out those in service positions, or which replaces manual workers in warehouses and factories with robots, will result in more structural and regional unemployment for the formally unskilled. This is not a true picture, though. Technological change can also produce lower cost products, such as cheaper banking and power apps, which affect those at the bottom of the scale more than the middle or top. ‘Glocalisation’ in whch manufacturing jobs return to countries which had previously outsourced them, similarly boosts the working people if those people can maintain a higher opportunity cost for capital, either through unions or gaining skills in the workplace or professional courses. Changes in restaurants which allow for fewer staff make cheap food cheaper by lowering costs, changes in supermarkets which encourage online purchasing mean more work for shelf-stackers.

Alongside these developments, governments have encouraged the development of employment protections, the limitation but not elimination of zero hours contracts (which have some benefits for supplemental income) and national living wages, as well as programmes like furlough and state employment and stimulus schemes. These have benefitted the poor and unskilled more than the skilled.

On the other hand, the nominally skilled have seen, as noted, vast increases in education costs, debt, housing, and food prices. The development of artificial intelligence threatens sectors previously dependent on learned and difficult skills, like legal property conveyancing, accounting, and medicine, by enhancing the less skilled or displacing the skilled. Professional barriers, for instance between doctors, nurses, and pharmacists, or legal executives and solicitors, or construction foremen and junior architects, are in those circumstances breaking down. Jobs are being shed in the financial industry.

‘Skills’ therefore take on a different quality. Life skills, manual skills, and the capacity to learn and re-learn through practical experience and courses, are beginning to be of greater value than professional skills learned through degrees and professional validation. Technology—not least in terms of transport, commuting, and apps—is lowering prices, improving access, and reducing the return to graduates whilst boosting those who can save, develop multiple income streams, or rely upon family and local communities. The gap between the formally skilled and the ‘unskilled’ is therefore not guaranteed to widen.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

To what extent do specialisation and the division of labour address the basic economic problem?

  1.   The basic economic problem illustrates the difficulty caused by the fact that economic goods are limited and subject to resource constraints but wants are unlimited. A choice therefore must be made, which gives rise to opportunity cost. Specialisation seeks to lower costs and thereby improve productivity by increasing the quantity and quality of output from firms. It does this by concentrating individuals or economic enterprises (or occasionally whole economies) on particular parts of the production or supply chain. This is often accompanied by the division of labour, in which individual workers or small teams of workers focus on particular aspects of the production process for a good or service. If correctly carried out, specialisation increases output and efficiency, leading to gains in terms of welfare and pareto efficiency for societies (shown by the outward movement of a production possibility curve.) It can also lead to lower costs, and possibly to production ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inequality, Part One: the greatest market failure?

    Income inequality arises when different consumers have different incomes, and different people have different talents. It could also arise because of the source of income or the value of the talents. For instance, employees might have different incomes from each other because of different marginal labour products, different factor returns to their labour, or different elasticities of labour. People might have different skills for which there is a greater or lesser need and employers, or the purchasers of labour might have different demands. Equally, entrepreneurs often take greater risks than others, and thereby expect and receive greater rewards than those who do not take risks. There might be different factor returns to capital or land, which result in various levels of profit, dividend, or rent, for those who do not live by the return to their labour value. A functional market would bring all these diverse groups together as suppliers and consumers and would matc...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is the existence of different wages a problem for societies, and if so, how can it be remedied?

  Adam Smith, and Karl Marx, both believed that labour value lies at the heart of all economic value. Commodities, goods, and services arise from the interaction of land, labour, and capital. Since Land is fixed until new land is cleared or built by workers, and since capital enhances labour and is invented by people, they both thought that the only people who added value in economic transactions were workers. This theory of labour value was qualified in the second half of the twentieth century by the elevation of entrepreneurialism as a factor of production. The enterprising businesspeople who took on risks, brought factors together, and who were rewarded with profit having been prepared to make losses, were elevated to a ‘fourth factor.’ This idea makes some sense, but also serves to undermine the idea that labour value on its own creates economic value. If labour has value, some argue that the value of time taken from a life to work should be viewed equally. This means t...
Post a Comment
Read more